Book’s claim that Hebrew punctuation is a relic of brutal colonial system sparks criticism
A review in The New Yorker of Florence Hazrat’s book on punctuation has drawn online criticism because it discusses her claim that Hebrew punctuation is a legacy of colonialism. Hazrat argues that punctuation helped turn Hebrew into a spoken language and encouraged a sense of Jewish unity linked to migration to Israel; critics say this wrongly connects language to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Reviewer Louis Menand calls the book’s premise that punctuation’s history is humanity’s history an overreach and questions its suggestion that a different official language might have prevented atrocities. Commentators including Daniel Sugarman, Isaac de Castro and former prosecutor Dave Aronberg condemned the argument, while one social media user said they would cancel their subscription. The article says Hazrat and The New Yorker were asked for comment.
- A book links Hebrew punctuation to colonialism and Jewish migration to Israel.
- New Yorker reviewer Louis Menand says the book’s premise overreaches.
- Several commentators criticised the argument online.
New here? Start with this
Hebrew was used for centuries mainly in religious life and writing, before it became a widely spoken everyday language again in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Punctuation—marks such as commas and full stops—helps readers understand how written sentences are organised.
Florence Hazrat’s book examines the history of punctuation and argues that it played a part in shaping modern Hebrew and a shared Jewish identity. The New Yorker’s review prompted criticism from commentators who dispute the way the argument links language, Jewish migration to Israel and colonialism.
The debate matters because it concerns how language history is connected to identity and to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It also raises questions about how far punctuation or official language policies can be said to shape political events and historical violence.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Hazrat’s argument can be read as an account of how apparently neutral tools such as punctuation help standardise a language, support shared identity and shape political belonging. Examining Hebrew’s modernisation alongside migration and state-building may illuminate how language practices participate in colonial power, even if punctuation is only one part of that history.
The case against
Critics can reasonably argue that linking Hebrew punctuation to colonialism risks conflating the development of a language with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and assigning political meaning to a practical writing system. They may also question whether punctuation could plausibly have influenced atrocities or national unity so strongly, and object that such sweeping claims outrun the evidence.